Pentax K-1 Review

After years of promises and months of teasing, Ricoh has finally unveiled the Pentax K-1, a 36.4MP full-frame DSLR built around the K lens mount. It becomes the only conventional DSLR to offer a full frame sensor with image stabilization.

The camera is extensively sealed and features magnesium alloy construction. But despite its range-topping status and high-end build, it has a relatively low list price of $1799.

Pentax K-1 Key Specifications

36.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor with no anti-aliasing filter

5-axis image stabilization rated to 5 stops by CIPA standard testing

100% pentaprism viewfinder with 0.7x magnification

33-point AF system (25 cross-type)

Extensive weather-sealing

1/200 sec flash sync speed

14-bit Raw recording (DNG or PEF)

AA filter simulation

Multi-shot Pixel Shift Resolution mode

Built-in GPS with electro-magnetic compass and Astrotracer function

4.4 fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps in APS-C crop mode)

Wi-Fi

1080/30p video

Sensor-shift cleverness

As this list of spec highlights should make clear, the K-1 makes the most of its moveable sensor. As well as the image stabilization, which is rated to an impressive 5 stops, the camera offers a host of other clever features. These include anti-aliasing filter simulation which vibrates the sensor during exposure to intentionally blur high frequency detail across multiple pixels, to avoid moiré. Then there's the Pixel Shift Resolution mode that increases color resolution by shooting four consecutive images with the sensor moved by one pixel - effectively canceling the Bayer color filter array and lowering noise by image averaging.

The other sensor-shift modes are also clever: the K-1 includes Horizon Correction, which rotates the sensor if you hold the camera slightly off-level, and the Astrotracer system that uses the sensor's movement to cancel-out the effect of the Earth's rotation when taking images of stars (something it can calculate using its GPS).

Upgraded AF and metering

The sensor at the heart of the SAFOX 12 AF module. It gives 33 AF points in all, 25 of which are cross type and three of which offer greater accuracy when paired with bright lenses.

The camera gets a new AF module (called SAFOX 12) which features 33 focus points, 25 of which are cross type. The central three of these offer higher precision when used with F2.8 or faster lenses and the central 25 continue to focus down as far as -3EV.

An 86,000-pixel RGB metering sensor acts to offer 77-segment metering but also aids the camera's autofocus system, enabling scene analysis and subject detection to yield accurate exposures and automatically select the correct AF point to stay on your subject (subject tracking) when using continuous AF.

Core competence

Overall, though, it's not the clever use of the sensor that most stands out about the K-1, it's Ricoh's obvious focus on the core photographic capabilities. There's a reason we chose to list the viewfinder size so far up the list of specifications - it's because we think it's something users coming from existing Pentax cameras will most appreciate. Sure, there are multiple exposure modes and time lapse options, but the things that most jumped out are the high resolution sensor, the well positioned dials, the large viewfinder and image stabilization - the core things that help you to get better images. Speaking of core things: some may bemoan the omission of a dedicated AF point control, though the four way controller can be re-purposed for this.

Which isn't to say the K-1 is entirely without the occasional flourish. Aside from clever sensor shift modes (that some - particularly landscape - photographers will surely come to love), the most obvious of these is its 'Cross-Tilt' LCD. The Cross-Tilt mechanism takes a tilting LCD cradle and mounts it on four legs that slide along a cross-shaped series of slots, allowing the screen to extend outwards and move in a complex manner, before the screen itself is tilted up/down.

The K-1's Cross-Tilt LCD system has all the elegance of two deck chairs mating, but it provides a useful range of articulation.

Mounted to the back of the LCD are four white LEDs that can be used to shed light on the rear controls. Another LED, whose behavior can be set independently, shines a light on the lens mount for easier alignment when swapping lenses in the dark. The camera's card bay and remote release port are also illuminated by LEDs.

For the most part, though, the camera's focus is very much toward a traditional approach to still photography. Video capture tops-out at 1080/30p (which can also be encoded as 60i, if you prefer), which is a long way from cutting edge, but we really doubt that Ricoh has would-be film makers in mind with this model.

Still shooters are likely to appreciate the camera's Smart Function system, which adds a third command dial to the top right corner of the camera and a further control to define its function. The three dials give direct control over three of the camera's parameters with the ability to customize one of them without going anywhere near a menu.

Pricing

And how much does Ricoh want for this twin-dial, weather-sealed, magnesium alloy, image-stabilized full frame camera? The list price is a fiercely competitive $1799, body only. To put that in perspective, that's $200 lower than the launch price of Nikon's more basic D610 and $300 less than what Canon originally expected for the EOS 6D, meaning there's only a $100 premium over the list price of Sony's image-stabilized a7 II.

This is a very similar pattern we've seen from Ricoh before, with the company's models often including higher-end features (twin control dials, prism viewfinders and weather sealing) at a lower price than you'd need to spend to get them from one of the other DSLR makers.

Lens lineup

At present, Pentax offers a mixture of full-frame compatible lenses, including a handful of screw-drive FA prime lenses from the film-era and the much-loved 31, 43 and 77mm FA Limiteds from the late '90s/early 2000s. However, the company is already starting to flesh-out a range of more modern 'D FA' zooms, including a 15-30mm F2.8, a 24-70mm F2.8 (both suspiciously reminiscent of certain current Tamron-branded zooms) a 70-200mm F2.8 and an 150-450mm F4.5-5.6. For now, though, those looking for modern, fast-focusing primes will be disappointed.

But that isn't the whole story, of course. Part of the reason for all the interest in a full-frame Pentax is the vast collection of K-mount lenses that exist around the world. The K-1 lets you use the aperture rings on these lenses and can give a focus confirmation beep with the central AF point, even with manual focus lenses. When you mount an older, manual lens the K-1 prompts you to manually specify the focal length so that the image stabilization can be tuned appropriately.

The K-1 can, of course, still use the Pentax DA lenses designed for the company's APS-C cameras. By default the camera will use a 15MP APS-C-sized crop of the sensor if a DA lens is mounted but can be made to use its full sensor region, if you'd prefer. Ricoh has published a list of those lenses that will produce relatively useable results in full frame mode, if the aperture is stopped down.

DA Prime Lens / Utility on K-1

DA 14mm

Crop Mode Only

DA 50mm F1.8

Stopped-down

DA 21mm Limited

Crop Mode Only

DA* 55mm F1.4

Stopped-down

DA 15 F4 Limited

Crop Mode Only

DA 70mm Limited

Stopped-down

DA 35mm F2.4

Stopped-down

DA* 200mm F2.8 SDM

Fully Functional

DA 35mm F2.8 Macro

Stopped-down

DA* 300mm F4 SDM

Fully Functional

DA 40mm Limited

Stopped-down

DA 560mm F5.6

Fully Functional

DA 40mm XS

Stopped-down

RC1.4X

Crop Mode Only

The company says that all of the DA zooms will only cover the crop sensor region.

Comments

I do not really understand chosen settings for this focus test.In my opinion none of them is suitable for tracking. Select 33 - based on manual is single point ficus chosen by user, and you will have to follow the subject, The same is center with difference of selecting center point only. The settings for tracking are called Expanded area AF with three options S,M,L, Small (Sel S) 9 points, medium (Sel M) 24 points and large (Sel L) 33 points. So off course the results are pretty bad for SEL33. The problem for me is that whoever was testing the camera did not read or understood manual of camera.Of course I could be wrong about proper settings for tracking, but they works me.

For our subject tracking tests, we used the mode where you select your initial point, place it over your subject, then initiate AF, after which the camera automatically shifts the AF point or points to stay on your subject if it moves or you reframe.

As we do for all cameras when testing subject tracking. It's not rocket science, though it may be for some, just not a group of people who's living is defined literally by understanding how camera systems work in and out.

In other words, we knew how to test the K-1, and tested it properly for all 20+ runs/experiments.

Sorry, but did you had a clearly defined target under the selected (central) point, in your swerving test?

Note that I'm not expecting the Pentax subject tracking to perform particularly well. I haven't really tested it (IRL and so on), but it does seems prone to lose the subject.However, can it perform at all if it doesn't even have a proper subject to begin with?

Rishi, I for one would appreciate it if you did publish your K1 35mm F1.4 tests that you mention above. I cannot think of any reason why you (DPR) would not. After viewing the youtube clip of the D810 focus with the manequin, etc. I tried a similar test with the k-1. (da 35mm macro @f/2.8, AF-C, 33 point auto. Focus hold set to off, medium and high. Similar, but not an exact replica) and the K-1 does not match the performance shown in your video. I cannot replicate 35mm F1.8 as I do not own the sigma lens. So I would agree that the K-1 does not focus as fast as the D810, nor does it have the 'stickability' demonstrated. But ... it is not that far behind, I would estimate it takes a fraction of a second longer to change and confirm focus. Perhaps 1/4 second? (I have no way to easily measure the lag)

As to the K-1 and AF-S hesitation, I have a K-1 and despite whatever lens I mount, I cannot replicate your 'hesitant' results. In my experience, even when moving from nearby objects to more distant objects the K-1 acquires focus when in AF-S mode in around 1/10 to 1/4 of a second. . Maybe you define that as hesitant. I do not.

To quote from an interview (here on DPR) of Fuji execs regarding X-T2 camera and their goals: "We want the X-T2 to be able to capture all subjects. The X-Pro 2 doesn’t need such fast AF, because for snap-shooting and portrait shooting it’s not necessary. But our target users for the X-T series include sports photographers."

I hope, Pentax execs see what is missing in K-1, e.g. from this review, and make the next version (of K-1) a leader in every important category (e.g. AF, Jpeg rendition)

With its stellar price-point, low-noise and large dynamic-range, I am sure K-1' successor will win hearts of a whole lot of photographers -- not just Pentax-ians.

As such, I am sure K-1 will suite the needs of a lot of Pentax-ians even today, for this camera is no mean achievement by Pentax engineers.

The danger is, if Pentax just rests on K-1 laurels and follows with minor upgrades... ; I hope that doesn't happen.

I don't understand why Pentax stick to the standard JPEG settings - seems to get shot down in reviews. The first thing I did when I got mine (not a K-1, though) was to change colours to 'natural'. although I'm sure there other changes I could make. I tend to shoot JPEG to try things out and then save the RAW if I decide I'm likely to keep the shot - nice feature being able to do that.

I fully get the admiral ship is to be launched with a full complement of 2.8 artillery, to cover the deep waters of parking lot. :) I hope however Ricoh won't fall for the C/N marketing "size matters". As an outdoors camera K-1 needs a line of light compact f/4 lenses in good old Pentax tradition. While I can afford the ridiculous hunk of glass 15-30/2.8, I chose to get the antique F 17-28/3.5-4.5 and FA 20-35/4 for my mountaineering photo projects. Be there weighs more. :)

It sounds like you are into zooms, in which case there are a few FA series lenses that would be worth checking out. The FA 28-70 f/4 springs to mind, but there is also a FA 28-105 f/4-5.6 that is pretty compact for a 3.7x zoom. Obviously the FA limited primes are tiny jewels of lenses, but even the DA Limited Primes 40mm and above are worth checking out.

An excellent review, in details.I am a fan of Pentax and have been on Pental SLR forums following the K-1. It is quite tempting to go and get a K-1 but decided to wait until this review to get an unbiased opinion.And that is exactly what this is. It lays out the shortcomings compared to other brands available in the market.I am pretty happy - rather more then satisfied with my K-5 image quality. I would wait for K-1 to catch up with AF to be at par with Nikon/Canon. I also feel there is much improvement needed with regards to video and flash.Pentax still wins for the Shake Reduction (IBIS) and the excellent image Quality ..!!Again, thanks DPReview for the efforts taken to post this review....

Don't get me started on the flash system. Luckily there are some third party options that make up for a great deal of the shortcomings of the Pentax flash system. Cactus V6 seems almost purpose-built for the task. But at least the K-1 finally broke out of the 1/180th rut the company has been in for 22 years. Still, I'd trade 100k of those shutter actuations for a 1/500th sync speed.

Alex, that is a popularly held misconception. The original Canon 1D had a focal plane sync speed of 1/500th, but you could sync up to 1/16000 with it's electronic shutter. It's not that it's impossible, it just puts greater stress on the shutter, decreasing the life expectancy, therefore companies don't do it anymore. Hence why I said I'd trade 100k of those shutter actuations (I don't do burst shooting). But an electronic hybrid shutter would be fine with me too.

This is not about being possible, as much as being practical. The 1D was an exception - later models lowered the sync and fastest speeds to 1/250-300 and 1/8000. And the 1D series weren't FF cameras equipped with a SR mechanism.

To enable what Nikon define as 3D tracking you need to be in auto exposure and custom image (why custom image I cant understand)

All Pentax k3 and above are able to track Z axis using the HD exposure meter but only the k1 is capable of interlinking data from both the 2D PD sensor and the HD exposure sensor to predict 'swerving' Z axis motion.

As drpreview deliberately threw a swerving Z axis target at the cameras to test their 3D tracking performance it would seem sensible to me if they actually enabled that function prior to test !!"

Simon Joinson said: "I have the K1 in my hand and I can tell you that changing the Custom Image mode doesn't affect X-Y tracking at all. Setting the exposure mode to Scene Analyze Auto does affect the tracking - it disables it (and you cannot use AF-C). I think this is a translation error. I would suggest that it's trying to say that the AF-tracking uses the RTSA system, but that doesn't mean you need to 'activate' it. It would be very odd if Pentax only offered this feature in a mode where you cannot select AF-C, or if you select one specific JPEG rendering mode."http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58052652

The exposure meter is not used for Z-tracking. That's the job of the PDAF sensor.

Many here appear to be trying to ascribe far more intelligence to Z tracking than exists. Z tracking is all about focusing on a subject under one AF point, and continually refocusing on it as it approached or recedes, looking for patterns of acceleration and deceleration only to better predict where it'll be in the Z axis only in the next instance. This requires little to no use of the metering sensor.

i did my own test today an hour ago. Conditions:1. The lens Pentax FA* 85 f1.4 - screw drive.2. ISO 800, about 6:30 PM.3. Av regimen.4. AF-C SEL9 regimen.5. Small JPEG (12 Mpix) to not overfill buffer during test shot series.6. Exposure 1/500.7. F 5.6.Result: The best result was 29 in-focus pictures out of 30. It is more than 95 percent hit rate.The series of pictures is available on my facebook. User name Mindaugas MG-efoto.Another real-life test was done with aperture f1.4. 14 shots in series, 12 - in-focus. The last two are out-of-focus and that is logical - very thin DOF. The series is also available on my FB.In my opinion, the best result is when you start shooting the object in-focus already and use AF-C SEL9, not the single point. I did not try SEL27. You simply should keep your moving object in the 9 point focus area during shooting.

@Wallace Ross Well said. This is what the majority of gear obsessed camera buyers don't understand. There are cameras designed specifically for sports and fast action, they focus with lightning speed and are priced accordingly. But if all you plan to do is take photos of your cat, you really don't need a $6000 camera. The same is true of lenses, in fact, I think it's even worse here. People complain about the "limited" selection of Pentax lenses (not to be confused with the selection of Limited lenses), but what they really mean is there are no 600mm f/4 lenses, or 50mm f/1 lenses. And while that is perfectly true, most of them have no intention of ever purchasing such a lens, and would probably wet their knickers if they even saw the price tag of one of these behemoths. They just like to complain about the lack of lenses that they could hypothetically purchase.

I've had the K10, K7, K5, K3 and just recently, I bought the K1.It's no surprise to say the K1 is the best. What is surprising is by how much.The thing that no-one seems to be commenting on is the overall apearance of the K1's photographs. The K1's pictures look like LARGE format film, ie 4"x5". To say that it's as good as medium format film would be unfair - it blows my Rollreiflex's results out of the water.

Am going to stop film photography? - No but that's because silver imaging serves other purposes for me. What would I use if I wanted to get the best possible portrait, low light shot or landscape picture? - This eK1, every time.It is truly fantastic and never fails to leave me in awe of its capabilities. Expensive Nikons and Canons are better for shooting a racing cars. I don't do that kind of photography. For *everything* else, the K1 is your best best.

i would jump without hesitations (k1 suits my needs very nice), but pentax gear (lenses, flashes etc, ) are not that common here. can't use adapters too much, also (this is where sony or canon shines, at prices too, at least some used canon gear)..when you buying photo camera, you buying wholw system. maybe with new cameras pentax will expand market..

Can anyone using the K-1 in pixel shift mode to scan C-41 film comment on how it compares to a drum scan? It seems like it would be the ideal tool. A link to a side-by-side comparison would be even better, but I know that's asking for a lot. Thanks in advance.

Wow, those are some impressive result, thanks Medex! It looks like you use the FA 100 2.8 macro as well. I've noticed that I can get better results with that lens on my K-3 than I can achieve with my Epson 4990 scanner, so I had my suspicions that the K-1 would be even better.

It's interesting, that real resolution is much lower thant expected according to specifications, especially when you scan the film. Flatbed scanners are of limited usability for this purpose. If you want better than 6 Mpix result, you should use dedicated scanner, e.g. Reflecta Filmscanner RPS 10M, that can provide about 24 Mpix resolution.

The exif for the AF tests currently posted show SR was on, was the camera tripod mounted? It has always been the case that SR should be switched off when mounted on a fixed support although the K1 manual does not specifically mention this, but it does state that SR is automatically switched off when using remote or self timer so it's logical to deduce that SR should be off when mounted on a tripod.

@McBrian we looked at both SR on and SR off while mounted on the tripod- there was no measurable difference between the AF test runs. The photos posted in the article do indeed have SR turned on, but as I said we tested it with SR turned on and off.

I took it that way. There was a discussion on the forum a while back about whether leaving SR on when on the tripod makes a difference. YMMV, but when long heavy lenses are involved some posters thought leaving SR on helped since the big lens still can vibrate a bit. For landscapes from a tripod I'd say SR off but I have no certain proof since I've forgotten to turn it off before and didn't really notice that hurt IQ. It is probably just a good habit to turn it off. Also during panning SR would shut off on older models. K1 might adapt (OS mode 2 style) nowadays though.

I think the in body Stabilisation seems to be a little more robust than a stabilisation in the optics. I do a lot of landscape and architecture photos, and I often forget to switch the the SR off on the tripod. I allways use a Yongnuo 602 remote control which uses the electrical remote port, that does not deactivate the SR. When I take photos from bridges or on a wooden floor in old buildings the SR helps a lot.

Joergensmi: This is certainly easy to imagine. The SR improves with each generation as well. I remember all those posts when Nikon D800 & Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 first came out everyone said they have to have 2 X 1/fl to hand hold it on that huge sensor. No such comments with the K1, some have said they get sharp hand held shots down to 1/2 sec when hand holding a 50mm lens.

Pentax has said, I think back in the K-5 days or earlier, that the SR system did a poor job of compensating for tripod based shake. That somehow it deals with shake due to hand-holding much better. In fact, I know older Pentax cameras turn SR off when you set the drive mode to remote release (because it only expects you to use this mode while on a tripod). I think Pentaxforums may have even does a test a while back, but I can't recall the conclusions. This all my be academic though because the K-1s SR system seems to be more effective than previous iterations.

Hi, little old Pentax thanks DPR and all the commentators (all press is good press). I use and love my Pentax cameras and still can't wrap my head around this AF tracking business. Pro action photographers use systems with cameras and lenses worth a mortgage down-payment. Pentax does not have that kind of gear and it's illogical to even compare it. What Pentax does extremely well is static photography with hard-to match feature sets at unbeatable prices. So, if you shoot birds in flight look elsewhere but if your gig includes landscapes, nature, cityscapes, macro, studio and similar photography (which could not care less about AF tracking) then Pentax is the answer. That's me.

A new version of this camera will come quickly. My bet we will see a K-2 soon. Since the pixel shift has been confirmed to be useless for anything moving, tree branches, grass, people, pets, cars, planes, clouds, sports, wildlife, children, street photography, water, etc....there seems like plenty of future opportunity for tweaks / changes / improvements.

Pentax has a habit of releasing much improved and refined versions of their cameras quickly after the initial launch.

I'm not sure I've ever seen them release a second flagship model soon after. The KS-2 came pretty quickly after the KS-1 because that camera was not well received. The only other quick replacement I can remember in recent years by Pentax was the K-50 which replaced the K-30, and in that case the upgrade was fairly minor, a stop higher ISO, and a more traditional looking design. I'm not sure I would hold my breath waiting for the K-1 mkII, but hopefully when it does come, they will fix a few of the shortcomings of the original like better video, better AF tracking, and for heaven's sake USB3. Why does the K-1 not have USB3, when the K-3 does?!

Moving on... to buy the K-1? Moving on... to buy more lenses, because they already have the K-1? Please be more specific.

Maxfield_photo, the K-S2 is in a different category than the K-S1 - it has weather sealed, two e-dials, tilt LCD etc. It was obviously planned before they start selling the K-S1; a camera can't be made in just a month or two.

@Maxfield_photo: Ricoh stated the K-1 has USB2 only because USB3 was not available yet when development of the K-1 started.

Regarding the USB2 vs USB3 discussion I wonder which class of SD cards would actually support read speeds that exceed the USB2 standard and which cameras actually have controllers that exploit read speeds above the maximum USB2 speed.

The interface type is one thing, achieving an actually quicker access to images is another.

I'am reading dpreview for a while now, messured in years, but it's my first post.Rishi, your post (after approx 2200 posts in this thread) now made the test clear for me:"You're missing the point. There's no predictive algorithm in the X-Y direction in single point. Only in the Z-axis. At which point it doesn't matter what object falls under the AF point as long as it's still in relatively a similar plane to what you want focused."So the K-1 has a usable predictive focus in AF-C mode if you can keep one focus point on the target, but it doesen't recognize if the object moves to somewhere else in the frame and it defults to infinity, which is obviously the fault of the camera.According to the review the AF-S mode is capable, but slow especially in low light, and AF-C is also working, but you should do the (easier) half of the work insted of the camera. This explains why is it behind the competition.

Thanks for the review and the clarification. If it would have been written down I would give a 5/5 for this review, but I agree with the comments, this part of the review wasn't clear, and it's inconsistent with other reviews. Now I know the K-1 would be a perfect camera for me, but not for everyone.

The AF-S lag is addressed by changing the camera setting to release-priority. They mention this in their discussion, but not in their conclusion. Whether the setting change makes AF-S lock at -3EV as fast as the D750 I don't know. The D610 only goes to -1EV, so no comparison there.

Hi, the relationship between people and technology is complex. I experienced this as a photographer and as a test/quality engineer. Technology sets the boundaries of what can be done but it is the operator who determines how much of this potential is actually employed. As a "young" photographer, I used to shoot outdoor events (such as the Venetian Carnevale) on Fujichrome 100ASA and 400ASA with two Oly cameras in aperture priority, 1.5fps winders, a 35mm lens in hyperfocal and a 100mm in manual focus. My rejects where mostly due to composition issues, not focus. Today, I see photographers tending to rely on technology too heavily at the expense of developing sound technique. Mastering one's gear, learning and predicting the subject, and reading the light can get you a lot of good shots even with simpler, inexpensive cameras. Case in point, many pro's also use mirror-less as go-everywhere gear. My main systems are APS-C and M43 but I regularly take salable pics with my Nikon P7800.

Reading through the comments, it would appear as though everyone on DPR is a professional sports/wildlife photographer in desperate need of lightning quick auto-focus tracking... which just isn't true. As a Pentax K-3II user who shoots landscape, portrait, night club events and weddings, I find the AF to be fast and precise for all but the most challenging tracking situations, which occur maybe 1% of the time. For the other 99%, it's a non-issue. And since the K-1's AF is even better, I seriously doubt anyone but the seasoned sports/wildlife pro's will have any issues with it.

@DuncanM1, that comment was in response to what another person said, and I don't see that response any more. Perhaps he wanted to retract, and has deleted it, leaving my comment dangling very dangerously. :-)

I think you are referring to my comment, K1000usr. It is neither deleted, nor retracted. I don''t know why you cannot see it. I can. You are probably mathematically correct. I should rephrase my comment as 'lightning fast tracking AF has never been a feature for which Pentax is highly regarded. Other brands do better in this regard, just as Pentax is highly regarded for features such as weather sealing, image quality and ergonomics. People considering buying into the Pentax system should be aware they will actually have to point their camera at whatever they want to track to keep it in focus, and not expect the camera to do all the work for them'.

I agree they have very smart engineers, but they are coming from a long way behind in terms of development. They have performed brilliantly, giving us many unique features. It seems that continuous AF has not been high on the priority list. Same as video.

Me either, but I'm very tempted to get out the only fast long glass I have (sigma dg 70-200) and go to something like a bird hide to try a few shots of moving objects with the K-1. What I shoot is either usually still, smiling at me , or looking moody and model like :). I shot Aussie rules football (not pro level) with this lens and a k-5, and Aussie rules football is WAY more unpredictable in movement patterns and subject selection decisions than the infamous bike test. The Pentax and this lens worked well, I would expect the K-1 to be even better, but I have no personal empirical evidence.

LF photography. You don't have to be pro anything. You just have to be a birder. And there are a lot of us who are also shutterbugs who would love to have all of the benefits of this camera paired to better AF performance.

It woul be very, very nice to gather all useful techincal comments together in one article ... I mean comments which help users of K1 by taking photos & not souch which only compare diferent brands, criticize the system ....

Or to make something like this groups above 'Most popular' .. 'Editosr picks' .. etc.

It would be useful in future reviews if the following was possible,A glossary to describe what Pro/Cons means according to Dpreview. (Rishi gave a definition that surprised me but it's now clear)How categories are weighted (in percentage terms).ALL tests are carried out on ALL cameras and ALL results posted.The same lenses are used on all tests (by this I mean for example 70-200 F2.8 NOT 2.8 for one camera and F4 for another).The review shouldn't refer to cameras in a different category, the often quoted DPR expression, "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category."IF comparisons are felt necessary to cameras in different categories it should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that they are from different categories.It should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR when a reviewer is making a subjective statement.Reviewers should NEVER make statements which could be construed as 'snarky' or 'sarcastic'.The award should NOT be based on a subjective view but solely based on FACTS.

Well,"It would be useful in future reviews if the following was possible."Sounds more like a request, hopefully helpful.Perhaps if some or all of the above had been employed there would have been less comments complaining about the review and reviewers would have had more time to do reviews instead of replying to commenters.On the other hand more posts mean more clicks which perhaps is useful for a website."Request for no snarks declined . . ."One can only ask.Then again, a snarky remark generally gets at least one reply.Click, click, click.It is a little disappointing when a polite and carefully worded post is answered in such a manner, especially when that was one of the suggestions designed to be helpful.Manners Maketh Man.I can rise above it without resorting in kind.It's unfortunate that you have just confirmed what some commenters have either alluded or directly stated.

"While we found autofocus to be fast, the K 1 isn't quite as swift in low light as some similarly priced cameras*. We didn't find this a major hindrance, but the system isn't quite as robust as what you'll get with Canon, Nikon, or Sony these days. This is even more true in terms of intelligent tracking capabilities—an arena in which Nikon does a particularly good job. Of course, it'll cost you quite a bit more to find a full-frame camera with such advanced capabilities, and the K-1 did a fine job of continuous AF."

If you think ranking the AF in the cons section as 'poor' is precise, then we have a different definition of the word. Not just cont tracking AF, not the AF when tracking a wobbly bike shortening the z axis. The whole AF system was rated as 'poor'. I know the wording has been changed, but this original primary school standard summation is part of the reason for the angst.

It has been a fair review, Pentax are not known for the best AF in the industry and it comes as no surprise, but some of the wordings of the reviewers are bizarre. Like what excatly does one mean by the AF is a failure? The only failure here is DPR's failure to get the most out of a camera, that while not a blazing fast sports camera, is quite a capable all round shooter. Clearly if someone wants to get action photos with a K1, they certainly can. Will it be as easy as pointing the camera in the direction you want and let it do all the work? of course not! but can you take action shots? definitely, enough Pentaxians have proven that!

Action photography is not only about keeping your camera still and letting the AF chase the subject. With enough practice and skill, people can take better action photos with a far lesser camera. So its unfair to say a camera is not capable of taking action shots at all, not as effortless as other brands, but it can get the job done if used right

Well, Ian, I don't mean tracking my son is the most demanding action photography, I showed it to illustrate that even lowly Pentax K-S2 paired with a decent lens can track children, and the K-1 ought to as well :) I have done some BIF with my K-x, didn't seem too hard if I can pan to follow the bird. Photographing airplanes and cars are much harder, and Barry and Mike seem to have pretty good success photographing airplanes and cars with K-1. So to say some of these common types of action photography can't be done with K-1 seems like a stretch.

Hi LightBug, totally agree. While its great to have progressive technology, a lot of people use it to mask their own laziness and deficiency in skill and technique. Professionals have used even Manual Focus to great effect. It seems people buy high end DSLRs to just have a point and shoot experience these days, just aim, spray and pray.

These days after the initial megapixel race, now af is the new overhyped metric photographers like to bragg on.

While its nice that Nikons and other brands have better af, any photographer who cannot use a K1 to take action photos has only his own skill or lack of to blame.

To get a perfect shot in ANY situation...............10% equipment(in this case K1)+40% lighting(ambient light or studio light) and 50% a person behind the camera (DPReview team) ......in order to get a good shot (universal law) in this case who failed..................?????

Pentax K-1 did not meet DPR's expectation in the "bike" AFC test, but many people report that it can do sports/action fairly well.

Sony A7RII aced the bike test, but DPR themselves reported it's not that good for sports/action photography.

What's more important? Being able to use a camera for real or meeting expectation of a singular test. By the way, I do not know what that expectation could be for K-1 in the "bike" test. If DPR shows how D810 performs under same test, maybe we have some valid expectation.

Ian, that you are correct, but it's consistent back focus, so I would say it's not the AF module's fault. I had AF fine adjustment set to front-focus +5 originally for that day, and that gave me some sharp photos of my son posing. But doing further micro adjustment while shooting a closeup of a grasshopper changed that to 0, and that seems to be my mistake. Looks like I should have trusted the original +5 AF fine adjustment. Thanks for letting me know, I hope to get even better photos with that combo.

To DPR staff--your review mentions AF-S hesitation under some conditions, but that changing settings to release-priority helps address it. Would you please clarify these points? This could be very important to folks considering the camera who aren't otherwise worried about how AF-C tracking compares to the D810 or D500. My K-1 AF-S seems nearly immediate and accurate in low light when set to release priority, but I'd value your more objective opinion.

The problem is (unless they went the K-01 route, i.e. space for the mirror box, but no mirror) that would require the creation of an entirely new lens line. They got blasted by many reviewers for only having 12 lenses at the time of launch. Can you imagine if they had to start from scratch? The most compelling reason against going mirrorless though is the die-hard Pentax fans who have been screaming for 15 years that they want to use their film lenses again in the format for which they were originally designed. No, a mirrorless K-1 would have been a disaster. Many of us still admire the simple functionality of a reflex mirror. Its the same reason we have mirrors in our bathrooms instead of a video camera and monitor, it just works.

So wrong. DSLRs will make sense for as long as Canon and Nikon continue having the best camera systems, they will continue to make sense for those that want long battery life, those that prefer bigger camera bodies with more comfortable grips and button layouts, for...many other reasons too.

The K-1 is a successful product. Part of it is because it was insistently demanded, part of it was that it wasn't starting from scratch (15 lenses in the current line-up, plus the old ones, plus 3rd-party ones), and part of it, for being a well-positioned product (the cheaper high-resolution FF DSLR, yet still being fully featured).

We don't know if a starting-from-scratch FF MILC would be even remotely as successful, but I'd say it would be an utter failure.Even the idea of making the K-1 mirrorless instead doesn't work. The 36MP sensor, for one, is not good enough for a mirrorless - by that I mean autofocus (CD-only), and video which IMO is more important for the mirrorless market.

Ricoh Imaging could, and most likely should start their own large sensor MILC line - parallel with the K-mount DSLR line. But with a higher volume APS-C, less expensive, less risky - building on that, gaining users and market acceptance. Then, a bit later, go FF with it.

The test is right. But as AFC working only on Z-axis, I don`t think, that K-1 is not good for wildlife, as review stats. Just imagine, that there was wild bear instead of bicycle! Jumping to your direction! At this moment I obviously had more worries, than slow AFC. Btw I had met wild bear in forest. He spotted me too, but didn`t escape. He was almost completely behind bushes and I start approach to him to get photo, before he escapes. He gives me so loud warning voice, that I quickly left this area. No photo was taken. Z axis AFC is not important for any camera, unless same rare situation. It is just option, like gps.

I'm not a wildlife shooter, but I've never understood all the fuss about blazing fast AF for wildlife. In most of the photos I see, the animals are standing, not running. Birds in flight are a different matter obviously, but usually they are far enough away that changes in the Z-axis are proportionally small. I feel confident that I could capture just about any wildlife shot with my K-3, and by all reports the AF system on the K-1 is supposed to be an improvement on that. It seems to me that photographers are sometimes guilty of making mountains out of mole hills when it comes to gear when really technique, patience, and practice are far more important in determining success.

Hi, I believe that, testing methodology notwithstanding, a lot of the controversy surrounding these reviews is due to the reviewer's comments and final grade. If feature-wise a camera is mostly an 8 out of ten then it is better than a mostly 7/10 but if the latter excels in the few features that are truly relevant to one's kind of photography, then it is the better choice. This is particularly true for Pentax cameras. I shoot non-action landscapes, cityscapes, nature, gardens, flowers, heavy weather and do some fine art studies and product photography in my little home studio. I shoot at night on a tripod. For video I use a camcorder. My budget is limited. After 50 years of shooting with almost everything under the sun, today I work with weatherized Pentax (and Olympus O-MD) cameras and for me they all deserve a platinum award. I love the affordable prices because they leave me some money to buy good lenses (my wife and CFO loves them too).

I think this quotation is at the heart of many problems in testing. If you compare results with the D750, does the k-1 36Mp actually produce inferior results to the 24Mp sensor of the D750? The D750 is being assessed as a 24Mp camera, and the K-1 as a 36Mp camera, and the comparison is because of price: if Ricoh upped the price by $1k, then the K-1 would be compared to the D810, and other Mp-dependent parameters such as burst rate and tracking would be more in line. Given that the number of variables is big and interdependent, surely it would be best to show only absolute figures and have a standard text which says which things are mutually incompatible - robust weather sealing and lightness, more megapixels =slower burst rates; higher Mp density = less good low light performance etc ,- the camera designers balance all those factors and make compromises they believe will suit the market they are aiming for.

It's always a little difficult to find cameras of other brands to compare to Pentax camera. I'm not saying Pentax is without their faults, but they tend to offer a lot of bang for the buck, so the question becomes do you compare them to other cameras based on "bang", or on "bucks"? I don't know that there is an easy resolution to that question that will satisfy everyone. For instance if you are doing a noise comparison with a camera like the D750, which is closer in price to the K-1 than the D810, you really need to normalize the image size since one camera delivers 50% more pixels.

The bigger issue is that the tracking of the D810 (and the 50MP 5Ds R) doesn't seem to be MP-dependent. No system is without its faults, but both cameras tend to track well despite the megapixels. Are they the same as a D5 or a 1D X II? No, but they're solid.

I'd also argue that robust weather sealing doesn't necessarily mean lightness (the D750 is weather-sealed and is very light, as is a Sony a6300). And higher megapixels doesn't necessarily mean worse low light performance, especially when files are normalized (a Sony a7R II compares favorably with an a7S II in this regard).

Carey Rose -I think my comments suffered a bit from cutting to the character limit - I agree, nobody seriously thinks that Pentax AF is as good as Nikon - the point I was trying to make was more about the effect of Mp on frame rate and the complexities - fewer fps means a longer time - and therefore more movement - between frames - that's all. Nikon deal with AF better than Pentax at all levels, but I'd hazard that the D810 was not as good at tracking as a Nikon action oriented camera - I might be wrong, I'm arguing from logic not observation. Pentax do do better weather sealing than Nikon as well as more metal in the body of the K-1 than the D750 and these do account for weight, that's all I'm saying. And comparing like with like, the penalty for higher pixel density is more noise - that's the point I'm trying to make while applauding different manufacturers for the solutions they come up with to mitigate the basic physics.

I rarely read whole reviews, believing that the Pros/Cons/Conclusion page will give an accurate summary.Now I see there's a startling lack of continuity between AF tests.Lenses not stated, some cameras tested with F2.8, other with F4.A reviewer stating that AF is better with an apc camera with an F4 lens compared with a FF camera with a F2.8 lens (not to mention the apc could be either a DSLR or mirrorless-apples and oranges).There's a frightening lack of consistency.

"Empty words? Check the 5DS review, the a7R II review, the D500 review, D7200 review, the a6300 review, and the D810 review. The D810 has a 200/4 sequence, albeit at ISO 2000 equivalent, and a different 'test', so it's not directly comparable"So, the reviews says himself, for the D810, the test was different they can't be compared.a7R II? The test used a F4 lens (Pentax a 2.8)-not comparable, I think.D500? it's an apc camera so not comparable-The Autofocus page doesn't state the lens used for the test.D7200-it's an apc camera so not comparable. Lenses used were f.28 (on an apc sensor) and F4Sony a6300-another apc camera-different category so not comparable. Lens used F4 (on an apc sensor).Canon 5DS-Lens used for test on autofocus page not mentioned.

Why are aps-c and FF cameras (or any other format such as m43) not comparable when simply talking about AF capabilities?

They all focus as fast and as accurately as they do. It's an absolute measure. If a Nikon D500 can focus faster track better than a K-1 then that is all there is to it. The size of the sensor is irrelevant.

Because DPR groups cameras into categories so apc and FF aren't comparable.The DOF on a apc camera is also greater so what may be out of focus on a FF camera may not be on apc camera which has a larger DOF.Also don't forget there is an inconsistent in the lenses being used.

Nonsense. Some arbitrary categorisation by a web site doesn't affect how fast a camera focuses or how well a camera tracks focus. They are absolute measures.

If DOF makes it easier or harder to focus depending on format so what? The focus speed and tracking ability are absolute measures. If camera A tracks better than camera B, it tracks better. End of. What size the sensor is? Irrelevant.

Yes different lenses can affect matters but I was not replying to that criticism just the notion you can't compare how fast a camera focuses because of different sized sensors. DPR could of course overcome the lens issue to a degree by buying in a set of 3rd party lenses and use those but then someone would complain Canon focuses quicker with Canon lenses or whatever.

You, of course can compare whatever you want with whatever you want.Often, when commenters mention cameras of different categories, the reply from the site is often,"Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category."So, why bring up cameras from different categories in the review.That could be the subject for an article, "which format should I choose', but they shouldn't contradict themselves.So, don't have a go at me when it's not my decision to make but the site, OK?"If DOF makes it easier or harder to focus depending on format so what?DOF may not necessarily aid focus but the resulting images will be more 'forgiving' due to the greater DOF (the area in in focus will be greater), while on a FF a smaller error in the focus acquisition and resulting images will be less forgiving.

(cont.)So, the titles all seems very positive or in the case of 'X Camera Review', neutral.Strangely, the latest Fujifilm First Impressions published AFTER the Pentax K1 Review has a question mark in the title.A cynical person would say that the writers have included it to say, "Look, we don't just do it for Pentax". Based on the other titles from this year's reviews maybe the cynical person would have a point.

So what would be wrong with changing a couple titles to: 'Setting New Standards?' for the D5 or 'Back To The Action?' for the D500. Then we could re-read the respective reviews with an ironic voice in our heads. :^) I guess I get your point.

@ Carey,If one doesn't know who Marshawn Lynch is (I didn't) it makes no sense.The headline itself still gives a positive, not neutral impression of the camera, even before the first line of the article has been read.The point I'm making is that the Reviews should be written simply as 'X Camera Review'.It would also save time from trying to think of a 'catchy' headline.

My experiences K10D on wildlife, real forest, wild animals, no “zoo park”. Animals don`t escape. They just curiously watched me from 60 m, being unspotted. Sometimes I feel them and took blind shot on direction. Only on my computer in home I see – there is elk had watched me. So wildlife photo is subjective. I need in forest better ISO, for F8 and maximum shutter speed. Handheld. AF is near infinity and not so important. For me I think, K-1, with very good ISO and resolution, is capable for my wildlife photo style.

I might be missing something, but why is that humiliating? Existing Pentax shooters are likely to have plenty of lenses, and be familiar with the system. Pentax announced the MZ-D in the early 2000's - I would think shooters excited for that camera would have been looking forward to the K-1 for some time.

Carey, if you don't understand what's humiliating in concluding the review with "K-1 is good for existing Pentax shooters", there is little hope that you would understand, even if made an attempt to explain. So yes, you are missing the point.

Carey,I have just checked the last 6 Canon / Nikon DSLR reviews on DPR. None (0%) said "Good for existing Canon users" or "Good for existing Nikon users" (as the case may be). I am sure that "lots of ...*Nikon/*Canon...shooters are likely to have plenty of lenses, and be familiar with the system"... as well.To say it in a Pentax review (and frankly it appears in most DPR Pentax reviews) is condescending at best.

I went back to LR to look at the the current set of images in DPR's K-1 review, and found out where the center of each frame were (left and right below refers to image's left and right, opposite of cyclist's left and right, in focus means the face is in sharp focus):

IMGP2813: left side of helmet (in focus)

IMGP2814: top left edge of helmet (in focus)

IMGP2815: left side of helmet

IMGP2816: face

IMGP2817: face

IMGP2818: face

IMGP2819: center of face (in focus)

IMGP2820: center of face

IMGP2821: center of face (in focus)

IMGP2822: face (in focus)

IMGP2823: left ear

IMGP2824: left side of face

IMGP2825: left side of face

IMGP2826: left ear

Compared to the AF overlay image, the center autofocus point seems about the same size as the cyclist's face in the first image.

I suspect the starting 3 frames having the focus point on side of helmet may cause some tracking issue.

It appears you don't understand what 'tracking' means as it relates to single point vs subject tracking. In the single point results you refer to, the camera's not doing any form of subject recognition whatsoever. It's just trying to focus on whatever falls under the center point. Save for the fact that if it senses any trends in the detected phase difference (continued increase in phase difference because of approaching subject, for example), it tries to predict where the subject distance might be at the next instance.

If you do not keep the face under the focus point, do you still expect the face to be in focus? Note half of the focus point could be to the outside of the helmet for the first three shots. Even if there is any predictive algorithm in place, how can that work without the subject (face) being under the focus point?

You're missing the point. There's no predictive algorithm in the X-Y direction in single point. Only in the Z-axis. At which point it doesn't matter what object falls under the AF point as long as it's still in relatively a similar plane to what you want focused.

That's why all the claims of 'but you didn't have the AF point exactly on the face!' are all, and have always been, red herrings (they wouldn't have been red herrings if the DOF were so slim that the cyclist's face, body, and bike didn't fall within the DOF, but that's not the case - we're looking for general focus on the bike/cyclist, which the K-1 was not able to achieve/sustain).

You're pretty much missing the entire point of the single point AF-C test).

We weren't expecting the face to be in focus. We were expecting at least something within the DOF of the cycle/cyclist to be in focus. In other words, our criteria was much less stringent than you think, and yet it still failed.

Rishi, I merely pointed out there is some alignment error in the test's focus, why is that a red herring? You don't think the face is expected to be in focus while you try to aim your focus point at it? The execution of the test seems to have issue causing the focus point to not align with the subject, maybe it's too hard to align focus point to the face exactly. In that case you should focus on something that's easier for the focus point to perfectly align with, zoom into that for illustration. You cannot expect people to buy into the result if the set up or execution is questionable. Also, please also provide D810 samples under same testing condition, I think that would make very interesting comparison.

The AF system of the A7 RII is entirely different. If you want to compare compare it to the D810. It doesn't have the 3d tracking the d810 has, so you need to pay a little more attention to where the focus area is. If you choose not to then it is user error.

No, it's still just AF system that tracks moving objects. K1 and K3 performed subpar Of course 80D, 7D II, D500, all went through the same bike test, and they all performed better than K3 and K1, despite numerous tries and with many lenses.

It's not about "suck". It's about fanboys, like yourself and others on the site, who tried to persuade reviewers to change factual test results where their brand perform subpar. DPR will have no credibility if they only started posting positive reviews about all cameras in all reviews, just to please fanboys.

Excerpt from above:In addition to the comparatively repeatable tests shown here, we also subjected the a7R II to some challenging real-world usage, and put the camera in the hands of a professional shooter pitch-side at the Seattle Seahawks. As you might expect, the a7R II performed significantly less well when trying to keep track of faster moving subjects during continuous shooting, and where there was a multitude of visually-similar potential targets.

The reality ... So while the AF performance is formidable, the success of the camera as a whole can be situation-specific, and we wouldn't recommend the a7R II over a traditional DSLR for continuous bursts in sports scenarios.

@ET2,DPR wouldn't recommend it but many Pentax users/owners would/have.It requires a different methodology to get shots, that's all.Professional photographers are interested in the real world results. That's what they are paid for.Not so many get paid for running 'tests'.

The person I was responding to was quoting DPR review on A7RII. I responded with the same source. DPR would not recommend any Pentax camera for sports. Many people have use Sony cameras for sports over the years. So what? K1 AFC is still worse than A7RII according to DPR tests,

@LightBug - I'm not saying you intended it as a red herrring, but it is a red herring, b/c we tried everything: we tried focusing on Sam's face in bright sunlight, in Richard's face in cloudy weather, and on the bike frame as well. You can see all those results in our Appendix here. The hit-rate is the same (within our margins of error) for all runs. And we repeated each one of those runs at least 3x.

We didn't align it perfectly? Here's the reality: the camera lagged in focusing on whatever was underneath the selected point for our approaching subject, whereas many others don't. Period.

When we focused on Sam's face initially, the complaint was that AF Hold wasn't 'off'.

When we then retested focusing on the bike frame, this time with AF Hold 'off', the complaint was that we focused on the bike frame, but showed the face (nevermind they're in the same plane, which you can see (here)(http://bit.ly/29PYLkt) where both frame & face are perfectly in focus, & nevermind that probably helped the camera b/c the bike frame is so high contrast).

So then when we re-did perfectly just for our audience, where we focused on Richard's face & showed exactly that, with AF Hold 'off', the complaint is we apparently didn't 'align it perfectly to the face'.

What does that even mean?

In all our runs, whatever was under the AF point was consistently mis-focused, with focus generally falling significantly behind whatever was under the point, save for when the system caught up. That's not us failing to 'align' the point, that's just the system struggling to refocus quickly.

The AF system of the a7R II is actually phenomenal, which is why it passed our tests with flying colors.

And if you can keep a single AF point centered over your subject in sports, its hit-rate is actually very, very good.

The problem is when it comes to shooting sequences - where the stop-motion playback of images makes it difficult to follow your subject compared to an optical finder. This could be partially circumvented if its subject tracking were as good as Nikon 3D tracking, but it's not (well, technically, it's even better for eyes, but not for general subjects).

That's why we didn't recommend it for sports.

The K-1's AF system in conjunction w/ its lenses, OTOH, is what lags, which means not only is it not good for burst sequences in sports, it'll also likely fall behind the a7R II even for single shots of moving subjects, & also won't be good for focusing on an erratically moving toddler/model/bride's eye.

@Rishi-"The Canon adapted lens tests on the a7R II were done at F2.8. Nearly 100% hit-rate there with the 70-200 F2.8L II."I was wasn't referring to adapted lenses but the native lens 70-200 F4. If I was referring to adapted lenses I would have stated it.As you brought up Adapted lenses-above you write 'nearly 100 per cent hit rate- in the review-"reasonable job" for both types of bike test-so reasonable means nearly 100 per cent? On that Autofocus page no mention was made of "nearly 100 per cent" nor the name of the lens used. You also don't mention the warning note on that page.

@ Rishi-"We also performed F1.8 tests with the a7R II and D810. Maybe we should've repeated those with the K-1?"In order to give a review where parameters can be compared, Yes, it would have been a good idea."And F2.8 --> F4 would cause 15-30% hit-rates to skyrocket to something far better"Did you try it? No.So how do you know it wouldn't? No, you can't.Tests with 1.8 lenses?- no mention of 1.8 lenses on the 7R II Autofocus pages.

I for one agree with your conclusions about AF performance. While you are only one source, other reviewers and users like PopPhoto have reached a similar conclusion, which gives me confidence in your results.

What I do have an issue with is the following:

1) No test of the IBIS. PopPhoto tested the IBIS and you have a standard test for it.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7-ii/6That this test was not performed is a major oversight.2) As mentioned, you did not test the Astrotracer. Yes, I realize Seattle is one of the worst cities for this test. But there are plenty of astronomy clubs around the country that would be glad to help you with this test.3) Ignoring cost factors. A K-1 with a 28-105, 50 mm 1.4, 100mm macro and a 300mm f/4 for $4300. (B&H pricing). A D810 with a 45mm Tamron and 24-85, 105mm macro and 300 mm Nikon VR lenses is about $6800. That is a huge difference. If you are not a sports/action shooter or videographer then (continued)...

(Continued) that needs Nikon's AF price should be considered.4) You seem to feel some sort of uses are more valid than others. You say:"With that said, the K-1 is well suited to serve enthusiast, landscape, still life and some studio photographers with outstanding image quality and a number of fantastic features that simply can't be matched at this price point."

I would also add astrophotography and the fact that some of these features are not matched on any other FF camera.

Plus, it is also a poor choice for people using a DSLR for videography.(Although many would argue any DSLR is an odd choice for videography compared to a mirrorless). Also, I would be interested to see how many users buy a FF for photographing kids, outside of sports.....

We never said that those forms of photography are less valuable at all- in fact I have no idea where you got that conclusion. It sounds as though you read the review and if you did then you would know that I praised the k-1 for its ability as a landscape camera and for that matter astrophotography work as well. I'm a professional landscape photographer and I for one found many of the features to be very useful in that particular field- which I spoke at some length about in the text.

The camera did receive praise as a landscape camera, but it also received this comment:"suitable for a relatively small portion of buyers in the full-frame DSLR market."

As I said, I agree, it is poor choice for the action/sports photographer. And it is also a poor choice videographers. But why, when there are a variety of other categories that it is definitely suitable for, is it only "suitable for a relatively small portion"?

That is where I got the idea from. If you are not an action/sports, wildlife or videographer, "you are a relatively small portion"

Also, why was the stabilization not tested like with Sony and Olympus cameras? PopPhoto tested the stabilization and The Camera store video refers to it.

Thank you for your response.

BTW, I did read every page of the review to make sure I didn't miss the testing for stabilization.

"Also, why was the stabilization not tested like with Sony and Olympus cameras? PopPhoto tested the stabilization and The Camera store video refers to it."

We have to make decisions about what we can and can't put into a review because we are incredibly resource constrained (you may have noticed the hundreds of comments last year about how DPReview is an incompetent website because they can't review cameras on a timely basis).

We've worked very hard this year to strike a balance between rigor and speed. That unfortunately means certain tests, and review pages, are dropped. This was unfortunately one of them. If at a future time we get a chance to, we will.

Were the PopPhoto results pretty comprehensive? If so, do you feel there's a reason for us to do it (would we add additional value?).

I don't believe you will find that I said this was an incompetent review site.

However, when other cameras, such as Sony and Olympus are tested for stability, not doing Pentax appears to be showing a bias. Now,if you never do a stabilization test again on any camera or lens. That would be consistent.

And yes, DPR doing a test would add value. I believe in seeing both reproducibility and repeatability in testing.

I just want to give thanks where due for the camera's design. From the front, it just looks so completely like a real camera ought to look. Sony A900 had that same design intent, and both these cameras share the distinction of being the first to reward their patient lens mount followers with a full frame digital body.

i'm coming from high end medium format, FF & aps-c, digital but sometimes film. My conclusion is simple, after 2 months with the K-1 and +20,000 actuations on this camera, with +20 pentax FF AF lenses, i disagree on almost anything you find bad.AF doesn't miss. AFC is almost perfect. everything with this camera beats or is equal to Canon & Nikon high end FF. Remember Canon & Nikon have dedicated cameras & gear for sports. Pentax doesn't . What you loose with Pentax in perfect pro sports photography, you gain everywhere else. I'm sure if you would've spent more time with the K-1 you would've find it way better than your conclusions. ;)

Phatbog,I have not shot quite as many digital cameras as you have. Although I reluctantly concur with the tracking conclusion of dpreview, I also agree with you that the K1 in my personal usage and experience, is the camera to beat. My lens collection is much smaller. However the few lenses I have along either K1 are giving me images far beyond anything I shot with before. I am coming from a long line of Canon bodies and L lenses as an owner and quite a few Nikon bodies as an occasional user.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, K1 is a beast at any price and at $1,800 asking price is a no brainer. I see medium format quality out of an APSc priced camera. How can you go wrong with that.

BTW, dpreview's silver rating is a major understatement. The K1 as a still image making camera deserves a platinum rating.

@nicolaiecostel : sorry, i don't have time for making reviews, because i spend my time doing my job which is making photography. @BNapa : i don't have much digital cameras, i just make them turn, buy & sell a t end of cycle etc etc.

I came to post my conclusion here just because i feel this K-1 needs true and just support because many photographers today aren't used to Pentax. And many reviewers aren't either. So their conclusions can be wrong. I usually don't spend time on forums or reviews. And i would'nt spend time talking about a hasselblad mf , or a leica , because there's no need. But this K-1 deserves more attention and Pentax "renaissance" under Ricoh is a major issue in photographic industry today.

@nicolaiecostel For medium format shooters, having more than one AF point is a luxury. And subject tracking, what is that? No, for MF shooters image quality is the only concern, and in that respect the K-1 does better than most 35mm cameras.

Maybe a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway.How many K1 bodies were available for testing by staff?If the Focus problems were SO horrendous, was the first thought to contact someone from Ricoh, or to ask for another body to verify if perhaps it was a bad copy?If the above was done, and I missed it, I apologise in advance.After all, a lot of the commenters who have posted say that they don't have such terrible problems.Would it be an idea-to ask for another body-maybe one of the commenters who had no problems would be willing to lend you it for testing?I mean, if I had a camera that performed differently than perceived, I would certainly make get in touch with the comapany. Was this done?

More about gear in this article

For a limited time this summer, current K-1 owners will be able to send their cameras in for a circuit board replacement, essentially upgrading to a Mark II. They'll even get a Mark II logo swapped in on the front of the camera.

The D850 was just announced, and by all accounts it's shaping up to be a very impressive DSLR. But should you upgrade your current camera? In this article, we've broken down the D850's main selling points compared to several popular models.

Ricoh has added two prime lenses to its full-frame lens lineup for the Pentax K-1: the forthcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.4. Although details are scant, we did sneak a peek at the 50mm, on the show floor. Read more

2016 was pretty good for high-end ILCs, as we'd expect from a Photokina year. Click through to read more about this year's crop of enthusiast and professional ILCs, and for your chance to vote on which was best. Vote now

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.